Last I checked, Israel was not occupying Gaza... it left there in 2005... there is not a single Israeli civilian or soldier within Gaza. So, there
goes your "occupation" theory...

Also, Gaza has a border with Egypt since 2005, which was open by the Egyptians whenever they felt like it... and if I remember correctly, they closed
it after a Hamas sniper killed an Egyptian soldier.

You do know that Hamas (and Islamic Jihad and the other terrorist groups in Gaza) INTENTIONALLY target civilians... right? firing missiles at
civilians towns etc... there's a moral difference (and a legal difference - look up the geneva convention... I'm sure it'll clear it up for
you...)

If the border would be open, that would be the greatest gift Israel can get, let the Egyptians choke with Gaza...

I agree Israel has no inherent right to interfer in the decisions of the Egyptian government with regard to the Rafah border crossing. However, there
may be agreements in place which Egypt should honor. I, for one would like to see the crossing opened because it makes no sense to deprive the people
of gaza of anything. As far as weapons are concerned, Hamas will continue to import them in the same manner they have in the past- through the many
tunnels. I don't believe Israel will try to interfere. But, IF they did it COULD start a war Israel doesn't want. Lets hope cool heads prevail.

Last I checked, Israel was not occupying Gaza... it left there in 2005... there is not a single Israeli civilian or soldier within Gaza. So, there
goes your "occupation" theory...

Also, Gaza has a border with Egypt since 2005, which was open by the Egyptians whenever they felt like it... and if I remember correctly, they closed
it after a Hamas sniper killed an Egyptian soldier.

You do know that Hamas (and Islamic Jihad and the other terrorist groups in Gaza) INTENTIONALLY target civilians... right? firing missiles at
civilians towns etc... there's a moral difference (and a legal difference - look up the geneva convention... I'm sure it'll clear it up for
you...)

If the border would be open, that would be the greatest gift Israel can get, let the Egyptians choke with Gaza...

Well, check again as Israel IS the occupying power in Gaza. Israel enters Gaza at will, controls the electricity and water as well as ALL goods
entering.

Hamas targets civilians? They sure do AND so does Israel. Since you mention the Geneva Convention I suggest you do a re-read as Israel is in constant
violation with the settler movement.

Actually, Israel is not the occupying force in Gaza, it enters only after being attacked, therefore, those are retaliation against attacks from enemy
territory (which is acceptable). Also, it doesn't control every border, they do have a border with Egypt no?? not under Israeli control. There are
agreements between Israel, the PA and Egypt that says that these passes between Gaza and Egypt must be monitored by Europe, but I wouldn't hold my
breath.

Israel would want nothing more then to stop giving them electricity and water... However, should Israel stop that, the entire world would shout,
"collective punishment" and all that crap... I would love nothing more for Gaza to get EVERYTHING from Egypt and leave Israel alone... you can't
say Israel is occupying Gaza and then cry when it wants to completely disconnect from it... see my point?

And about the Geneva convention, Hamas is in clear violation, since it doesn't mark it's people in uniform, does not have separated bases as far as
possible from civilian population, and hides behind civilians (ample evidence for that from Hamas videos which they upload), so, they are responsible
for whichever harm befalls their citizens as a result of their actions.

Oh, and how can you morally equate the intentional targeting of civilians (as Hamas does) with the UN-intentional harming of civilians when they are
harmed as terrorist either conduct their operations in their midst (Hezbolla in Lebanon 2006 - and before, and Hamas in Gaza and other places). I
believe most countries would have not bothered as much as Israel to minimize collateral damage (which shouldn't be - but wars aren't as accurate as
one would want).

Now, as far as settlements, this is off-topic at best, as this thread relates to Gaza. There aren't any settlements in Gaza. But as far as
international law, well, I'm no lawyer, but from what I know, the entire area is under dispute, so until it's resolved, it's under negotiation, so
nothing is defined is legal or illegal.

I for one am HAPPY that the border between Gaza and Egypt would be open, Egypt had always had a clear interest to keep them blocked since it hurt
Israel and allowed them to control the "muslim brotherhood", I guess we'll see if they open it or not... BUT, once it's open, I am afraid that
everyone here with their agenda would still claim that Israel is occupying Gaza (which it does not)

Actually, Israel is not the occupying force in Gaza, it enters only after being attacked, therefore, those are retaliation against attacks from
enemy territory (which is acceptable).

Mate Gaza is a frekin prison and Israel are the #ty wardens..
Everyone would be happy if Israel went back to the pre 67 borders but that ain't gonna happen because Israel NEVER had any intention of sticking to
ANY agreements and will not stop till they have ALL the land..

Again with the deflection?! it's not a numbers game... it's the fact that Hamas (and the others) INTENTIONALLY (look the word up in a dictionary
will you?) targets civilians, while Israel DOES NOT...

Here's an experiment for you. Has Israel wanted to kill tons of civilians, how long would you think it'd take the Israeli air force to turn Gaza
into a parking lot and kill tens of thousands of civilans? Answer: NOT LONG... so, if Israel really wanted to kill civilians by the droves, it would
have done so and in far greater numbers.

I'll try and show it for you using boolean logic... INTENTIONAL != UN-INTENTIONAL... see?

The 67 borders are the armistice borders between ISRAEL, EGYPT and JORDAN... Simple questions for you BiB (so you'd be able to write "BS" alot)

1. Why was there no Palestinian state between 1949 and 1967?
2. Who was in control of Gaza and the west-bank between 1949 and 1967, and therefore, who lost those areas in 1967?
3. Nowhere in UNSCR 242 does it say that Israel has to withdraw to the 1967 borders... (look it up... you appear to claim that the UN is a credible
source to you...), it says it has to withdraw to defensible borders, as part of a regional peace agreement that would ensure security.

And most importantly, what you seem to not get - Hamas has a religious problem with Israel, not territorial...

Again with the deflection?! it's not a numbers game... it's the fact that Hamas (and the others) INTENTIONALLY (look the word up in a dictionary
will you?) targets civilians, while Israel DOES NOT...
Here's an experiment for you. Has Israel wanted to kill tons of civilians, how long would you think it'd take the Israeli air force to turn Gaza
into a parking lot and kill tens of thousands of civilans? Answer: NOT LONG... so, if Israel really wanted to kill civilians by the droves, it would
have done so and in far greater numbers.
I'll try and show it for you using boolean logic... INTENTIONAL != UN-INTENTIONAL... see?

Mate, if Israel thought they could get away with it then I doubt there would be an Arab left alive..

Yes, they DO and HAVE targeted civilians..
They just always say it was an accident...
So many accidents for such an advanced military, amazing really..

You seem to froget that Gaza is part of the Palestinian Authouity. Palestine IS occupied. The fact that they do not have a constant presense in Gaza
is no less meaningful than not having a constant presense in say, Nablus. Gaza is part of Palestine and therefore occupied.

Actually you are incorrect, Israel left Gaza, and therefore Gaza is not under occupation. Regardless of what part of whichever "legal entity" it is,
as far as areas that were under direct Israeli control after 1967, Gaza no longer qualifies, therefore it does not fall under the definition.

Also, "Palestine" is not occupied, as those territories were taken from Egypt and Jordan, and there were no formal borders between Israel, Egypt and
Jordan as of the end of the war in 1949. Therefore, Israel cannot be said to be occupying anything (legally speaking). If you look at the UNSCR 242,
you will see what I mean.

Second, I noted that you still ignored the questions I posed (as usual for you)

I guess you can't confuse you with the facts, since you already made up your mind, so as far as I am concerned, discussing these things with you is a
waste of time... as you will never convince me and I apparently will never convince you.

Like I wrote to you time and time again, you are passing judgement on a situation you do not understand, in an area in which you do not live. I think
that's presumptuous at best, and arrogant at worst.

Actually you are incorrect, Israel left Gaza, and therefore Gaza is not under occupation. Regardless of what part of whichever "legal entity" it is,
as far as areas that were under direct Israeli control after 1967, Gaza no longer qualifies, therefore it does not fall under the definition.

Also, "Palestine" is not occupied, as those territories were taken from Egypt and Jordan, and there were no formal borders between Israel, Egypt and
Jordan as of the end of the war in 1949. Therefore, Israel cannot be said to be occupying anything (legally speaking). If you look at the UNSCR 242,
you will see what I mean.

Israel has an exclusion zone INSIDE the Gaza border..

THAT is an occupation....
It ain't Israeli land yet they control it...
End of this stupid, Israeli biased debate...

I guess you can't confuse you with the facts, since you already made up your mind, so as far as I am concerned, discussing these things with
you is a waste of time... as you will never convince me and I apparently will never convince you.

Like I wrote to you time and time again, you are passing judgement on a situation you do not understand, in an area in which you do not live. I think
that's presumptuous at best, and arrogant at worst.

What's arrogant is you only listening to opinions from Israel..
The world is way bigger than Israel and their voice is nothing compared to world opinion..

World opinion is against them but you continue to spew the Israeli line..

Israel outright refuses, as do you, to specify what is the actual situation in Palestine..
If they did then we could pin them down on legalities..
As it is Israel and yourself are all over the place sprouting multiple laws..
It's all smoke and mirrors..

can you please remove algeria, morroco and tunisia from your list ... The countries whose legislation is based more or less strongly Shariah are:
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya. In addition, the Sharia has been introduced in legislation
in some countries during the twentieth century: Sudan, Egypt (as a "source of law") and some northern states of Nigeria and Somalia.

The UN resolution(242) states it should include the application of both of the following principles

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of
force."

U.N - Resolution 242 PDF
I don't know about you but that seems as if they are saying they should retreat to the June 1967 borders. I wouldn't expect you to post such
disinformation on this forum.
As for Hamas having a "religous" problem you may be right. However they have agreed to peace with Israel if they abide by resolution 242 and
withdraw from any territories occupied during the 6 day war. The credibility of this is debatable, although personally I believe they would abide to
this as the failure to do so would gain them an increased negative view in the international community and would be suicide for them. Israel would
then be able to rightfully destroy them.
This would abide with international law which clearly states that the aquirement of territory through war is inadmissible.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.